DETAILED ACTION
[1] Remarks
I. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
II. Claims 1-20 are pending and have been examined, where claims 1-15 and 17-20 is/are rejected and claim 16 is/are objected. Explanations will be provided below.
III. Inventor and/or assignee search were performed and determined no double patenting rejection(s) is/are necessary.
IV. Patent eligibility (updated in 2019) shown by the following: Claims 1-20 pass patent eligibility test because there is/are no limitation or a combination of limitations amounting to an abstract idea. Also, the following limitation or the combinations of the limitations: “a gaze detection system that detects a gaze as a direction of the eyeball on a basis of the captured image of the imaging system, wherein the patterned light has a shape along a reference pattern having at least three lines not parallel to one another, the reference pattern having an intersection point where at least two lines of the at least three lines cross each other” effects a transformation or a reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing / adds a specific limitation(s) other than what is well-understood, routine and conventional in the field, or adding unconventional steps that confine the claim to a particular useful application and providing improvements to the technical field of gaze detection, which recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and amounting significant more.
[2] Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
Use of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is invoked is rebutted when the function is recited with sufficient structure, material, or acts within the claim itself to entirely perform the recited function. Absence of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is not invoked is rebutted when the claim element recites function but fails to recite sufficiently definite structure, material or acts to perform that function.
Claim elements in this application that use the word “means” (or “step for”) are presumed to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Similarly, claim elements that do not use the word “means” (or “step for”) are presumed not to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claim(s) 1-20 are not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA U.S.C. 112 6th paragraph because of the following reason(s): limitations are modified by sufficient structure or material for performing the claimed function.
Upon examination of the specification and claims, the examiner has determined, under the best understanding of the scope of the claim(s), rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(a)/(b) is not necessitated because of the following reasons: sufficient support are provided in the written description / drawings of the invention.
[3] Grounds of Rejection
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
U.S.C. 102 Conditions for patentability; novelty.
[Editor Note: Applicable to any patent application subject to the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA (see 35 U.S.C. 100 (note) ). See 35 U.S.C. 102 (pre-AIA ) for the law otherwise applicable.]
(a) NOVELTY; PRIOR ART.—A person shall be entitled to a patent unless—
(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention; or
(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151 , or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b) , in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(b) EXCEPTIONS.—
(1) DISCLOSURES MADE 1 YEAR OR LESS BEFORE THE EFFECTIVE FILING DATE OF THE CLAIMED INVENTION.—A disclosure made 1 year or less before the effective filing date of a claimed invention shall not be prior art to the claimed invention under subsection (a)(1) if—
(A) the disclosure was made by the inventor or joint inventor or by another who obtained the subject matter disclosed directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor; or
(B) the subject matter disclosed had, before such disclosure, been publicly disclosed by the inventor or a joint inventor or another who obtained the subject matter disclosed directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor.
(2) DISCLOSURES APPEARING IN APPLICATIONS AND PATENTS.—A disclosure shall not be prior art to a claimed invention under subsection (a)(2) if—
(A) the subject matter disclosed was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor;
(B) the subject matter disclosed had, before such subject matter was effectively filed under subsection (a)(2), been publicly disclosed by the inventor or a joint inventor or another who obtained the subject matter disclosed directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor; or
(C) the subject matter disclosed and the claimed invention, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, were owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person.
Claims 1-8, 10, 12-14, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(1) as being anticipated by LEE (US 20140098198).
Regarding claim 1, LEE discloses a gaze detection device comprising
a patterned-light illumination system that irradiates an eyeball with patterned light (see figure 2, 230 lighting which irradiates an eyeball);
an imaging system that captures an image of the eyeball irradiated with the patterned light (see paragraph 55, apparatus may include at least two wide angle cameras 210, a narrow angle camera 220); and
a gaze detection system that detects a gaze as a direction of the eyeball on a basis of the captured image of the imaging system (see paragraph 118, a gaze tracking apparatus may obtain a reference position 1620 in a user calibration position 1610 in which user calibration is performed), wherein the patterned light has a shape along a reference pattern having at least three lines not parallel to one another, the reference pattern having an intersection point where at least two lines of the at least three lines cross each other (see figure 14 illustration below, point O is an intersection between 2nd line and 3rd line, where the reference shapes are shown in figure 2):
PNG
media_image1.png
609
633
media_image1.png
Greyscale
.
Regarding claim 2, LEE discloses the gaze detection device according to claim 1, wherein each of the at least three lines crosses at least one of the other lines (see figure 14 illustration above, the O point are the at least one intersection).
Regarding claim 3, LEE discloses the gaze detection device according to claim 1, wherein each of the at least three lines crosses at least two of the other lines (see figure 14 illustration above, the O and Pr are the at least two intersection).
Regarding claim 4, LEE discloses he gaze detection device according to claim 1, wherein the reference pattern has the at least three intersection points not located on the same straight line (see figure 15, points O, Pr and Gr are the points).
Regarding claim 5, LEE discloses the gaze detection device according to claim 1, wherein the at least three lines cross one another at the same intersection point (see figure 15, at point O there is an intersection with three lines including the dotted line from S0 to O).
Regarding claim 6, LEE discloses the gaze detection device according to claim 5, wherein the at least three lines form consecutive acute angles around the intersection point (see figure 15, the lines formed a triangle which include acute angles).
Regarding claim 7, LEE discloses the gaze detection device according to claim 5, wherein the at least three lines extend radially from the intersection point (see figure 14 and figure 15 illustration below):
PNG
media_image2.png
283
748
media_image2.png
Greyscale
.
Regarding claim 8, LEE discloses the gaze detection device according to claim 1, wherein the reference pattern has multiple patterns, each including the at least two lines crossing each other (see figure 14 illustration below, point O is an intersection between 2nd line and 3rd line).
Regarding claim 10, LEE discloses the gaze detection device according to claim 8, wherein the multiple patterns include the at least two patterns of different shapes (see figure 2, include multiple patterns of different shapes, icon of different shapes).
Regarding claim 12, LEE discloses the gaze detection device according to claim 1, wherein the gaze detection system includes a corneal-reflection-image detection unit that detects from the captured image a feature point of a corneal reflection image of the patterned light (see paragraph 9, detector to detect corneal reflected light information regarding corneal reflected light reflected from an eye of the user, see figure 9 shows corneal reflected images).
Regarding claim 13, LEE discloses the gaze detection device according to claim 12, wherein the corneal-reflection- image detection unit associates the intersection point and the feature point on a basis of information indicating an angle and/or a direction near the feature point of the corneal reflection image in the captured image (see figure 14, point O is the intersection point, where the angle is formed Pr and Gr, figure 9, the feature is the reflection).
Regarding claim 14, LEE discloses the gaze detection device according to claim 12, wherein the corneal-reflection- image detection unit extracts a pixel that has been increased in brightness in the captured image, as a pixel constituting the feature point (see figure 9, the binary mask show candidate locations of the reflection, where the white pixels have pixel value higher than the dark pixel which reads on the increased brightness).
Regarding claim 17, LEE discloses the gaze detection device according to claim 12, wherein the gaze detection system detects the gaze on a basis of at least a captured image of the imaging system and a detection result in the corneal-reflection-image detection unit (see paragraph 55, Referring to FIG. 2, the gaze tracking apparatus may include at least two wide angle cameras 210, a narrow angle camera 220, paragraph 9, a third information detector to detect corneal reflected light information regarding corneal reflected light reflected from an eye of the user).
Regarding claim 18, LEE discloses the gaze detection device according to claim 1, wherein the patterned-light illumination system includes a light source that emits the patterned light (see figure 2, 230 are light sources).
Regarding claim 19, LEE discloses the gaze detection device according to claim 1, wherein the patterned-light illumination system includes: a light source; and an optical element that shapes light from the light source to generate the patterned light (see paragraph 55, Referring to FIG. 2, the gaze tracking apparatus may include at least two wide angle cameras 210, a narrow angle camera 220, and at least two infrared lightings 230).
Regarding claim 20, LEE discloses the gaze detection device according to claim 1, wherein the imaging system includes an event sensor (see paragraph 55, Referring to FIG. 2, the gaze tracking apparatus include at least two wide angle cameras 210, a narrow angle camera 220, and at least two infrared lightings 230).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
1. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
2. Claims 9 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LEE (US 20140098198) in view of Guendelman (US 20130283213).
Regarding claim 9, LEE discloses all the limitations of claim 8, but is silent in disclosing the gaze detection device according to claim 8, wherein the multiple patterns include the at least two patterns that are identical in shape. Guendelman discloses the gaze detection device according to claim 8, wherein the multiple patterns include the at least two patterns that are identical in shape (see figure 1, 36 are the same shape).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include discloses the gaze detection device according to claim 8, wherein the multiple patterns include the at least two patterns that are identical in shape because the original shape is known and identical, the system can isolate space variations allowing it to calculate how far the user's eye is from the sensor without needing complex.
Regarding claim 11, Guendelman discloses the gaze detection device according to claim 8, wherein the patterned-light illumination system irradiates the eyeball with portion of the patterned light, the portion corresponding to the pattern where the intersection point is detectable among the multiple patterns (see paragraph 73, As the user points finger 30 toward display 28, computer 26 can define a line segment between one of the user's eyes 34, or a point between eyes 34, and the finger, and identify a target point where the line segment intersects the display, 36s are the multiple patterns). See the motivation for claim 9. In addition, it isolates only the necessary data to drastically improve processing efficiency, reduce optical noise, and save power.
3. Claims 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LEE (US 20140098198) in view of Wright (US 20160379408).
Regarding claim 15, LEE discloses all the limitations of claim 12, but is silent in disclosing the gaze detection device according to claim 12, wherein the gaze detection system includes a movement information estimation unit that estimates at least one of an amount of movement, a direction of movement, and a velocity of movement of the eyeball on a basis of a detection result in the corneal-reflection- image detection unit. Wright discloses the gaze detection device according to claim 12, wherein the gaze detection system includes a movement information estimation unit that estimates at least one of an amount of movement, a direction of movement, and a velocity of movement of the eyeball on a basis of a detection result in the corneal-reflection- image detection unit (see paragraph 73, one or more light sources 1518A, 1518B, such as infrared light sources, may be configured to cause a glint of light to reflect from the cornea of each eye of a wearer, where gaze parameters measured by one or more gaze sensors that used by the augmented-reality engine 1520 to determine an eye gaze sample may include an eye gaze direction, head orientation, eye gaze velocity).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include gaze detection system includes a movement information estimation unit that estimates at least one of an amount of movement in order to measure velocity allows software to predict where the user is looking before their eye even finishes moving and to translate raw visual data into clear, actionable tracking metrics.
[4] Claim Objections
Claim(s) 16 is/are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
With regards to claim 16, the examiner cannot find any applicable prior art providing teachings for the following limitation(s): the gaze detection device according to claim 15, wherein the movement information estimation unit estimates a position of the feature point that corresponds to the intersection point and that has not been detected by the corneal-reflection-image detection unit, from the feature point that corresponds to the intersection point and that has been detected by the corneal-reflection- image detection unit, and then extracts from the estimation result the direction of movement of the eyeball; in combination with the rest of the limitations of claim 1, 12 and 14.
LEE discloses the gaze detection device according to claim 15, wherein
CONTACT INFORMATION
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEX LIEW (duty station is located in New York City) whose telephone number is (571)272-8623 (FAX 571-273-8623), cell (917)763-1192 or email alexa.liew@uspto.gov. Please note the examiner cannot reply through email unless an internet communication authorization is provided by the applicant. The examiner can be reached anytime.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, MISTRY ONEAL R, can be reached on (313)446-4912. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ALEX KOK S LIEW/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2674 Telephone: 571-272-8623
Date: 10/2/26
Prosecution Insights